Original data vs interpreted data for old plate works?

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joined: 2012-01-25
Original data vs interpreted data for old plate works?


I am sitting here with a dataset of about 750 images of fungi from the old plate work Flora Danica (see reference here eventually: http://www.svampe.dk/projekter/flora-danica-svampetavler/)

A question: These old plates (from 1780-1880 approx.) has an original name and an interpreted name. How do you feel I should fit these names into ABCD? E.g. plate 838 is named as Lycoperdon corniferum but is interpreted to Gymnosporangium cornutum Arthur ex F. Kern 1911. Or a bit worse: plate 2099 is named Himantia globulifera and is uninterpretable to anything but some mycelium.

The interpreted name could go into TaxonIdentified, but what about the original name? It is of value to keep this information with the record.

BW Chr. Lange

Franck's picture
Joined: 2011-04-01
Dear Christian, Within the

Dear Christian,

Within the framework of OpenUp, the element could be mapped in "dc:description", /DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Notes, under the form " original identification: Lycoperdon corniferum"),.

ABCD developers are investigating the possibility to add a specific element for the original identification in the next version of ABCD at longer term.